Madras High Court gives no solace to a corrupt public servant

Madras High Court gives no solace to a corrupt public servant

The High Court said in no uncertain terms that the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot apply to disproportionate assets cases

The Madras High Court (HC) has refused to come to the aid of a public servant accused of amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income.

In a significant judgement in the Dhandapani v. The Vigilance Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and ors case, Justice K Murali Shankar made it clear that the prior government sanction was not mandatory for inquiring into corruption allegations against a public servant under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act when the allegations concern possession of disproportionate assets.

The Court left nothing to ambiguity while observing that Section 17(A) calls for previous approval where the offence alleged to have been committed by the public servant is relatable to the discharge of his official functions or duties.

Section 17(A) mandates prior approval from the government against a public servant when it comes to offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.

Section 17(A) was inserted to the Prevention of Corruption Act to give protection to the honest officers against possible harassment and enable them to discharge their duties without any pressure.

In the case before the HC, Justice Shankar found that the public servant had not been charged with any offence relatable to the discharge of his official function or duties. The Court observed that the FIR was registered for allegedly acquiring assets disproportionate to his kown source of income.

"I am of the view that prior approval under Section 17 (A) of Prevention of Corruption Act is not at all necessary and that the said provision is not applicable to the disproportionate assets cases," Justice Shankar observed while dismissing the plea of the accused who had taken recourse to Section 17(A).

The public servant, an Assistant Director in the Rural Development Department, Trichy, had challenged the initiation of an inquiry by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Chennai, contending that such an enquiry could not have been initiated on a complaint without first obtaining approval for the same under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The officer in question has been accused of purchasing properties that had not been disclosed to the government and had not been accounted for.

Justice Shankar agreed with the submissions that the Delhi High Court in its judgment in Devender Kumar v. CBI and the Chhattisgarh High Court in Sathish Pandey v. Union of India has held that Section 17A would not be applicable where the alleged offending act of the public servant appeared on the face of it lacking in good faith.